arts'n'edVISOR - Issue Nineteen, May 2009

After a hiatus of some months, welcome to our nineteenth issue of arts’n’edVISOR in which we continue to focus upon issues of concern to those of us currently (or potentially) acting as postgraduate supervisors.  

Should you wish to respond to any of the items featured in this or previous issues, your comments or questions are always welcome. Copies of the previous arts’n’edVISOR newsletters may be accessed from the Faculty Research Newsletter web page.

Also, if you are aware of new members of staff in your particular discipline, area, or centre, it would be much appreciated if you would advise them of this and past issues as well as sending the Faculty Research Office email: artsed-research@deakin.edu.au their names and contact details for future issues.

Amongst the items in this issue, changes afoot in the Institute of Research Training, the European focus upon doctoral publications, a review of drafting by English as second-language Postgraduates.

May I also take this opportunity to thank Liz Hewitt publicly for her seven tireless years as the Administrative Officer of the Faculty’s Research Office.  Not only was Liz graced with a capacity to cope with our unrelenting demands, but she also had the gift of being able to anticipate problems.  Our loss is M.I.B.T. gain!  Since late last year, we have been fortunate to have secured Robyn Ficnerski assisted by Kylie Koulkoudinas, both based at Waurn Ponds [Geelong].

Not only do we invite contributions to “arts’n’edVISOR,” but we also invite you to copy relevant excerpts for postgraduates in your charge.

Dr Ron Goodrich godric@deakin.edu.au

 

[1] School H.D.R. Representatives – First Half of the Year

S.C.C.A.:
Dr Katya Johanson katya.johanson@deakin.edu.au Burwood
Dr Leonie Rutherford leonie.rutherford@deakin.edu.au Geelong (deputy)

S.Educ.:
A/Prof. Chris Hickey chris.hickey@deakin.edu.au Geelong
Dr Joanne O’Mara joanne.omara@deakin.edu.au Burwood

S.H.H.S.:
Dr Joost Coté joost.cote@deakin.edu.au Burwood
Dr Tanya King tanya.king@deakin.edu.au Geelong (deputy)

S.I.P.S.:
Dr Ken Boutin ken.boutin@deakin.edu.au Geelong
A’Prof Stan van Hooft stan.vanhooft@deakin.edu.au Burwood (deputy)

Apart from appraising applications, approaching potential supervisors, ranking scholarship contenders, and chairing Faculty Confirmation Colloquia, all are available for consultation and advice and for issues of concern which can be raised at H.D.R. Sub-Committee meetings.

 

[2] Institute of Research Training

Succeeding Richard Ingleby and then Peter Beech, Professor Roger Horn has been appointed as Director, Institute of Research Training. He has had extensive experience as a Ph.D. supervisor in the experimental sciences as well as in the broader administration of H.D.R. students, especially at the UniSA.

He has expressed his forthcoming role from 6th July 2009 at Deakin as one where  I look forward to leading growth in capacity to train HDR students, to providing HDR students with structures that support rewarding research experiences, and to achieving a high rate of successful completions of research degrees.

Before his departure, Richard Ingleby responded to two frequent questions about the use of the  “Completion Checklist” incorporated into Annual Reviews (see Item One in Issue Eighteen), namely:

[1] Why does the checklist ask candidates whether they have completed their collection and analysis of data? Surely candidates can’t say they are ready to submit unless they are already at this stage?

In previous Annual Reviews, half the candidates claimed they were going to submit within a year, yet the highest proportion of completions ever in one year was nearer to 18%.

On one level it may not matter. Optimism about submission is not of itself a problem. But if the optimism reflects an unrealistic approach to completion then it is a cause for concern.

The approach that “I’ve done the research and all I need to do is write it up” creates the danger of motivation being lost and the candidature going astray. So the checklist is designed to create a more realistic approach to the laboured nature of the writing up process.

[2] Why are candidates asked about the nomination of examiners?

Neil Barnett, Chair of the Research & Research Training Committee, and I are firmly of the following views:

1. There is no legal restriction on candidates discussing the identity of examiners with supervisors.

2. Candidates should not make approaches to potential examiners under any circumstances whatsoever.

3. One benefit of candidates discussing potential examiners with their supervisors is that it directs candidates’ attention to the audience for their thesis – this assists in the writing process.

4. Other benefits of candidates discussing potential examiners with their supervisors is that it:
• empowers candidates in the planning of their candidature
• makes it less likely there will be delays in the examination process
• makes it more likely that candidates will have positive reflections on their candidature .

 

[3] Postgraduates’ Publications

Following Item Five in Issue Eighteen on our candidates’ publication records in recent years, this article might prove of interest:

PhDs that Focus on Getting Work Published Are Common in Europe
Julie Ferry The Guardian Weekly, vol. 179, no. 13, 12th September 2008, p. 40

Finding the right job after completing a PhD can be difficult. Some research students discover that years of breaking new ground do not equip them for a competitive job market, and have a problem standing out from the crowd of candidates with the same qualifications. One answer may be to rethink the way to get a PhD.

The smart alternative for research students is to study for a PhD by prospective publication, a method already popular in Europe. It means writing a series of shorter papers, rather than one thesis, which are then published in peer-reviewed journals, immediately adding weight to a CV.

"A PhD is essentially an apprenticeship in research and one of the key skills for successfully completing research is writing papers for publication, which can be difficult to master," says Professor Jonathan Elford of City University's department of public health, which offers PhD students in London the publication option.

Completing a PhD by thesis usually involves writing 200-300 pages, reviewed only by a research supervisor and examiners. So many PhD students are never trained to turn their research findings into valuable short, succinct papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Elford is confident the UK will follow other countries and this method will be widespread in a few years. "It makes sense as people get a chance to acquire transferable skills for their fu­ture careers while they are completing important research."

Elford is supervisor to Sarah Dougan, 29, who began her part-time PhD looking into HIV incidence and prevalence in gay men in the UK in January 2004, while she was working at the Health Protection Agency. She is expected to complete it by the end of this year. "Although I have worked throughout my PhD, I've found through experience that a lot of job applications ask for your publication history. So if you have a PhD and a bank of published papers it is quite useful and I think it will help me climb the career ladder quicker."

Dougan credits the method for helping to develop her writing skills. "I am much more focused and able to write short papers now because you have to get quite a lot of research into a maximum of 3,000 words."

Producing six or seven published papers isn't easy, and this may not suit some types of research. Dougan's seven papers had a common theme, so it was easier to write a commentary tying all of them together for her final submission to examiners.

Dr Ian Lyne is head of postgraduate training and research career development at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. He says that PhDs on prospective publication are becoming more common, but are not for everyone, and "to get six or seven papers published can be a tall order." He believes that PhD students should be focusing on honing other important career skills, such as networking.

Students should think ahead about the key research groups in their field. One of his top tips is to make contact informally with the group leader to express interest in its work, to find out how well junior researchers are supported within the team, to ask if there are any vacancies and to send in a CV to be kept on file.

He cautions against being too single-minded about a career. "Don't just drift into a job in the academic world because it is all that you know, there are lots of opportunities beyond it."
Elizabeth Coulson, 29, has a successful career outside of research. She completed a PhD by thesis in high speed lasers for data communications systems at Cambridge in 2005 and is now a chartered patent attorney and co-owner of patent practice, Coulson and Associates. She got a position as a trainee patent attorney before completing her PhD, as the result of a combination of a strong research background and well developed softer skills, which she emphasized at her interview.

"The firm I approached while I was completing my PhD was looking for highly qualified, technically excellent candidates and many applied. I didn't have a large publication history to draw on so I tried to be as coherent, confident and likeable at interview as I could. In a client-based industry like mine, it is important that people can build a rapport, so being able to master good interpersonal skills is crucial."

back to top

[4] Book Review on Supervising English-as-Second-Language Postgraduates

Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors, Brian Paltridge, Sue Starfield. (New York: Routledge, 2007), (pp. 200). ISBN 0415371732. US$37.95

In response to the changing demographics of university campuses and increased competition to attract higher research degree students, many universities in different parts of the world now offer a suite of options to support English as additional language (EAL) research students, including semester length research writing courses, seminars, individual writing support, and on-line resources. Less prevalent are resources to support supervisors of EAL students, despite their crucial role in guiding students towards timely completion, and in developing students’ skills as research writers. Supervisors can be ill-equipped to tease out their students’ culturally informed expectations of the supervisory relationship, their conceptualisation of the writing task, or to articulate the key linguistic requirements of thesis writing. This inability can hinder progress and adversely influence the student-supervisor relationship. The level of EAL students’ English language proficiency is another potential area of concern, and can considerably contribute to the time supervisors spend discussing and reviewing their students’ writing. As Sinclair (2005) points out, supervisors can face a range of pressures to do with supervising EAL students, including knowledge of students’ financial pressures and possible isolation, the additional time spent on communicating with students and reviewing their work, as well as financial pressures from their own institution for students’ timely completion. Paltridge and Starfield’s handbook for supervisors is therefore a timely contribution to the field. As the title indicates, the primary audience is supervisors although as the following description of the chapters should show, much of the discussion and suggested tasks are useful to teachers of advanced academic writing courses and their students.

Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language consists of twelve chapters. The first three chapters provide background discussion on contextual factors such as assessment expectations, cross cultural and linguistic aspects of thesis and dissertation writing; the following eight chapters are organised around the principle milestones and tasks of thesis writing. The concluding chapter provides a comprehensive list of resources for thesis and dissertation writing. The chapters are informed by discussions of the thesis writing literature, the authors’ research in this area, their teaching experience as developers of thesis writing courses as well as their experiences as supervisors at research universities. Each unit includes tasks for supervisors and their students, and many of the discussions are supported with authentic annotated excerpts from theses drawn from a range of disciplines, including arts, social sciences and science. The discursive style is an accessible one for supervisors and students, with the authors’ stated aim of the book as making available some of the tacit knowledge supervisors may have of the thesis writing process that may not be shared by their EAL students.

Chapter One sets the scene by discussing the social and cultural context of thesis and dissertation writing, including intended audience, disciplinary considerations, attitudes to knowledge and expectations at different levels of study. This chapter and the following, ‘Working with second-language speakers of English’, provide useful background reading and relationship building suggestions for the commencement of supervision, and/or for supervisors of EAL students with educational and cultural backgrounds very different to their own. The discussion on aspects such as cross-cultural communication and differing expectations helps to raise supervisors’ awareness of their own tacit expectations of communication and behaviour as well as awareness of their students’ culturally influenced behaviours. Although this chapter adds little new information to the field, for example, all the hands-on tips are adapted from other sources it brings together theory and practice for the benefit of supervisors. Chapter Three, ‘Thesis writing in English as a second language’, is likewise an awareness raising chapter. The authors identify four main issues which can have an impact on EAL writers: psycho-affective issues, behavioural issues, rhetorical issues, and social issues. These divisions help to identify for supervisors the myriad factors beyond language proficiency that can add to the writing burden. Chapter Four, ‘Writing the research proposal’, is the first of the eight chapters on aspects of writing the thesis. In this chapter, distinctions are made between the task of writing the master’s dissertation and the doctoral thesis. It includes suggestions on developing the proposal, refining a research question as well as the components of the research proposal. Students will find the table on ‘purpose of each section of a research proposal’ (p. 61) illuminating. Chapter Five, ‘The overall shape of theses and dissertations’, draws on Paltridge’s influential research (2002), and is essential reading for supervisors and students to become aware of the range of disciplinary practices, particularly for those supervising interdisciplinary studies. This chapter includes the first of useful language focussed suggestions and examples, such as the inclusion of metatext. In the following chapter, ‘Writing the introduction’, the authors rely heavily on Swales and Feak’s (1994) CARS model to outline the rhetorical moves in the introductory section, and on Swales and Feak’s discussion of the role of the literature as well as language choices to establish the gap in research. The inclusion of annotated excerpts from history and physics PhD theses to illustrate these moves is beneficial. Chapter Seven, ‘Writing the background chapters’, deals principally with reviewing the literature. The discussion covers the purposes of reviewing the literature, what needs to be included, the role of argument and narrative, strategies for writing the literature review as well as a brief section on the linguistic dimension of reviewing previous research. The authors point out that critiquing previous studies is a key feature of literature reviews; however, little space is devoted to this aspect. Supervisors would no doubt have welcomed more detailed assistance in explaining this critical dimension of any literature review. The methodology chapter, in contrast, is comprehensive and insightful, with discussion of the difference between methodology and methods, the place of the methodology section in relation to the type of thesis, ethical considerations, and writing qualitative methods, as well as a discussion of features that distinguish a quality methodology chapter. This chapter is rich in supporting figures and annotated excerpts. Results and discussion sections are separated into two chapters, allowing depth of discussion on function, structure, required linguistic resources such as metatext, and evaluative language. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language also includes a chapter on writing the abstract and acknowledgements, components of the thesis that are invariably read first and carefully by examiners, yet are sections that often receive scant attention in writing guides….

References
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 61-70.
Sinclair, M. (2005). The pedagogy of ‘good’ PhD supervision: a national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision.
Available from: www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/
publications_resources/profiles/pedagogy_of_good_phd_supervision.htm
[Accessed 27.08.08] Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Robyn Woodward-Kron
International Student Support Program, Medical Education Unit,
University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia
E-mail address: robynwk@unimelb.edu.au

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Journal of English for Academic Purposes xx (2008) 1-2

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.002

back to top

back to top

[6] Current H.D.R. Enrolments @ 1st May 2009

As you may have heard, the Faculty is aiming to increase its postgraduate research numbers to three hundred as former capping constraints are being reduced and fully removed by 2012.  At the 1st May (immediately after the latest round of graduations), our enrolments are as follows:

School	Enrolment Type	Number
S.C.C.A	On-Campus	35 [53.8%]
[65]	Off-Campus	18 [27.7%]
[24.3%]	Full-Time	26 [40.0%]
	Part-Time	27 [41.5%]
	Intermission	5
	Under Examination	7
	Principal Supervisors	21 [@ 3.1 av]
S.Educ	On-Campus	25 [22.7%]
[110]	Off-Campus	69 [62.7%]
[41.2%]	Full-Time	29 [26.4%]
	Part-Time	65 [59.1%]
	Intermission	2
	Under Examination	14
	Principal Supervisors	26 [@ 4.2 av]
S.H.H.S	On-Campus	22 [41.5%]
[53]	Off-Campus	21 [39.6%]
[19.9%]	Full-Time	22 [41.5%]
	Part-Time	21 [39.6%]
	Intermission	5
	Under Examination	5
	Principal Supervisors	24 [@ 2.2 av]
S.I.P.S	On-Campus	23 [60.0%]
[39]	Off-Campus	12 [30.8%]
[14.6%]	Full-Time	25 [64.1%]
	Part-Time	10 [25.6%]
	Intermission	1
	Under Examination	3
	Principal Supervisors	16 [@ 2.4 av]
Faculty	On-Campus	105 [39.3%]
[267]	Off-Campus	120 [44.9%]
	Full-Time	102 [38.2%]
	Part-Time	123 [46.1%]
	Intermission	13 [4.9%]
	Under Examination	29 [10.9%]
	Principal Supervisors	87 [@ 3.1 av]

Clearly, different trends can be discerned in our different Schools, be it the proportion of Off- and On-campus postgraduates or the distribution of principal supervisions amongst Staff.  These and other patterns will form the background to the Faculty’s plans for increasing enrolments overall.

 

[7] Forthcoming Mid-Year Scholarship Round

As mid-year scholarship [“DUPR”] applications close Tuesday, 30th June 2009 and you may find new or existing applicants approaching you for advice and references, it might be worth repeating some of the main criteria applied:

• Is the research proposal aligned with key research priorities of the Faculty or emerging research clusters?
• Does the applicant have a strong undergraduate score (out of 10) (or near approximation of final year where HD = 10, D = 7, & C = 4)?
• What are the applicant’s qualifications, actual or immediately pending (more specifically, are thesis & coursework results known)?
• What evidence is there of research publications (and are they refereed or not), (if applicable: what additional ones have been undertaken since last application)?
• What are the referees’ ranking(s) (and do they actually focus upon research capacities)? topic or short title (noted in attachment to this email);
• Is a supervisory panel for the proposed topic likely?
  

More details can be found in arts’n’edVISOR, Issue XVI, December 2007, Item [2]…

back to top